Re: [Simulavr-devel] patch: make bootstrap suggest a separate build directory

[address@hidden]

On Tue Jun 16 16:54 , Onno Kortmann  sent:

>> >output. Consider that people may one day not check out from CVS
>> >but use a source .tar.gz instead.
>> 
>> I'm not trying to add more.
>> I'm just trying to fix a bad doc.
>Well, maybe my bad english confuses you:
>I think that the bad (missing) docs are in 'configure' itself.
>It should thus be fixed in configure.ac, and not in bootstrap.

The "the" in "the bad (missing) docs are in 'configure' itself"
suggests that the *only* bad (missing) docs are in 'configure' itself.
The badness under discussion occurs in several places,
but, for the moment, I'm only trying to fix one place.
The place is bootstrap.

>People may download simulavrxx.tar.gz with a pre-made 'configure'
>from configure.ac, and they will not see your message when
>just calling 'configure'.

Configure could use fixing also.  I'm starting small.

>> As-is, bootstrap finishes with a direction to run ./configure .
>> To me, that should be fixed.
>I do this (with additional options) and it causes no problems for me.
>What is your problem with simply calling ./configure?

Autotools don't like me.
It's rare for me to have them work twice in a row.
When I make a mess, I want to be able to clean up easily.
I want to be able to know that I've cleaned up.
Being able to remove an entire directory does that for me.
I don't need to worry about the efficacy of the clean-up mechanisms.

>> It's not clear to me that building in the source
>> directory should necessarily be allowed.
>I like to build in the source directory. So I think
>it should be definitively allowed by the build scripts.

I'm not suggesting that it should be deliberately disallowed.
I'm more interested in ensuring that using
a separate build directory is not discouraged.

>I'm no simulavrxx maintainer,
>but I still like to voice my opinion here :-)
>
>.. and I also think that a VPATH build should be supported. 
>
>> The possibility doesn't bother me,
>> but I think that it should not be a goal.
>> It certainly should not be made to seem a requirement.
>I rather understood the message from bootstrap as a hint
>on what to do next for those who are not familiar with the autotools
>bootstrap+configure+make process. But if it is confusing,
>it should be fixed, I agree.

If one doesn't know what one is doing,
as I didn't the first few times,
a hint isn't much different from a command.

Can we get someone to check in the patch?

--
Michael Hennebry
address@hidden
"War is only a hobby."

---- Msg sent via CableONE.net MyMail - http://www.cableone.net